Population aging, which has made it difficult for many companies to recruit eligible young employees, pushes people to rethink whether compulsory retirement has been out-of-date. In my opinion, we should abolish this regulation and create more flexible legal articles instead, to protect the benefits of both workers and employers.
One of the reasons is that mandatory retirement results in a huge waste of human resources. People differ in innate talents, physical conditions and career types, so a unified requirement for their retiring age will probably prevent them from continually contributing to the society. For example, an elder prestigious professor will be required to stop working when he reaches the age for retirement, no matter how well his body function is and how enthusiastic of him to commit to his job. It is counterproductive for him to realize potential to the utmost and achieve a sense of accomplishment, thereby causing a waste of his knowledge and intelligence.
This regulation is likely to lead to skills gap in many corporations and end with the shortfall of capital. This is particularly the case for companies in high-technology area, in which the manager needs to spend lots of money and effort on recruiting and training new workers after the old stuff retire, especially when young talents are more and more difficult to find under the aging trend. Consequently, the lower quality of work outputs at the meantime will exert a detrimental effect on their financial power and competitiveness.
Some people may argue that if the mandatory retirement is abolished, the benefits that employees are endowed with will be easily disregarded. It is possible for them to suffer from labor exploitation of greedy superiors, and be required to take large amount of workloads to maximize companies’ interests. As a result, they are deprived the chance of enjoying the happiness of family reunion and are at greater risks of sickness. In my mind, however, this concern can be addressed through specific legislation, like setting rules specialized in labor-incentive works, but intellectual works should be in the same case.
As suggested above, considering the potential damages which are brought by compulsory retirement, it should be abolished.